The Attempted "De-Ba'athification" of 1946 Germany

[Errigal]

I saw this video posted over at Phora.net. It is an educational film for US occupation troops in Germany and was supposedly never used. If this film was in fact never shown it is a bit more evidence that the "neo-con" faction who pushed for the Morgenthau Plan was not yet strong enough to fully impose their Old Testament concept of justice on America. They have more than made up for it since.

+ YouTube Video

Notice no mention of what we now call the Holocaust. That itself should be of interest.

[Menydh]

Interesting piece. It makes me wonder about the parody being played at Skadi, still going on behind the curtains at The Thing.

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Interesting piece. It makes me wonder about the parody being played at Skadi, still going on behind the curtains at The Thing.

They had a version of this film over at Skadi and The Althing?

[Menydh]

No.

I was thinking of the irony that it is that the ownership, being German and of a New Age Nazi orientation, provided and promoted a platform for Americans to go along with Germans, to rampage against Europeans.

[Gnist]

A terrible piece of propaganda, and rather good as a hint to what Germany is today. Not really an independent state, that is.

It blames Bismarck for uniting Germany and it blames Germany for world war one. Both are strange accusations, and the second one decidedly false, as far as I know.

Germans are depicted as amoral, hateful robots that will never stop making war. That's a shame. I don't care if this film was issued or not, it reflects damn well what happened in chapter "4:?". The sentiment of this film had success and prevailed.

Thanks Errigal, for posting it.

[Kernunnos]

they forgot to say that the first chapter was written in teutoburg, when they slaughtered the roman legions of Varo.

So the americans were also revenging that cruel and barbarian act.

[Marulus]

Self-righteousness at its worst...

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Breha

they forgot to say that the first chapter was written in teutoburg, when they slaughtered the roman legions of Varo.

So the americans were also revenging that cruel and barbarian act.

I also thought the accusation against Bismarck for the Franco-Prussian War was unfair. My understanding is that Napoleon III took a gamble on war with Prussia and lost.

[Gladstone]

Hmmm...I'd thought collectivized guilt was supposed to be a no-no.

Anyhow, great post Errigal.

The type of propaganda displayed in the film only works in a vacuam however, for the world had already largely been conquered at the latest by about 1900 when the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) formed the 'special relationship', a relationship just short of an outright political union. Since that time the US/UK has done just about everything together, particularly wars. The British Establishment journalist and close associate of Cecil Rhodes of Africa fame, WT Stead, amongst others at around that time, roughly calculated that the US and UK had within their power three times the economic wealth and resources of the combined French, German, and Russian Empires*, which in turn very roughly translates as the US/UK having a nine to one economic proponderance over any one of those empires by themselves...empires who unlike the US/UK were not in 'special relationships' with each other.

This conquest of the world at the start of the 20th century was not a total one though (and is not yet), and hense the three 'world wars' (including the ever likely to expand present one with Moslems and Islamic states called euphamistically 'the war on terror'), largely, when one studies the history of these wars, instigated by the US/UK to maintain and consolidate this dominance, and what those who rule over those two powers probably see as 'mopping up'. One has to recall here that in the warped ideology of multi-culturalism promoted by the US/UK, it is not that an independent power from them is 'good' or 'bad' per se, it is rather merely that the independent power exist, that requires its destruction. Those independent powers are referred to typically as 'rogue states' and are demonized prior to their being attacked and crushed. Those who rule over the US/UK are acting in conjunction with powerful elements of elites of a people claiming Middle Eastern origin, who far disproportionate to their numbers, dominate both the US and UK, the latter elites dominating the former ones.

WT Stead's book The Americanisation of the World published in 1901, and from where the excerpt below is taken from, is posted by Google in its whole for free. A search of Google for 'The Americanisation of the World, book Stead' will readily find it.

The lion's share of the world is ours...

US and Britain Meet To Sign Atlantic Charter - 1941

The sea, which covers three-fourths of the surface of the planet, is their (the US/UK's) domain. Excepting on the Euxine and the Caspian, no ship dare plough the salt seas in Eastern or Western hemisphere if they choose to forbid it. They are supreme custodians of the waterways of the world, capable by their fiat of blocking into submission any European State contemplating an appeal to the arbitrament of war.

Of the dry land, they have occupied and are ruling all the best gold mines of the world. There is hardly a region where white men can breed and live and thrive that they have not appropriated. They have picked out the eyes of every continent. They reign in the land of the Pharaohs, they have conquered the empire of Aurungzebe, and have seized with imperious hand the dominions of Spain. They have despoiled the Portuguese, the French, and the Dutch, and have left to the German and the Italian nothing but the scraps and knuckle-bones of a colonial dominion...

The rest of the world cuts but a poor figure compared with the possesions of the English speaking allies.

The lion's share of the world is ours, not only in bulk, but in tit-bits also. The light land of the Sahara is not worth a centime an acre. The vast area of German South Africa would hardly provide a livelihood for the population of a middle sized German village. With the exception of the Rhine, the Danube, the Amour, the Volga, and the Plate Amazon, nearly all the great navigable rivers of the world enter the sea under the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes. The Valley of the Yangtse Kiang is ear-marked as the sphere of our influence. The whole of the North American Continent, from the North Pole to the frontier of Mexico, is within the ring fence of the English speaking race, and from the whole of Central and Southern America all trespassers have been emphatically warned off by the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine. WT Stead - The Americanisation of the World (1901), pg 9 -10

* pg 11 of Stead's The Americanisation of the World

[Gladstone]

As has been mentioned these world wars are about the US/UK (and associates) maintaining and consolidating global domination, something that is rather plainly stated at times. Below are excerpts from a book that President Jimmy Carter's former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, a person very high in the US Establishment, wrote and published in the late 1990's. Note that what Brzesinski decribes and what is taking place presently in Asia and Eastern Europe regarding the US/UK fits very well Sir John Mackinder's 'Heartland' strategy described by him in 1904.

The world’s two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian...

Zbigniew Brzezinski

"“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire…if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia....The states deserving America’s strongest geopolitical support are Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine, all three being geopolitcally pivotal. Indeed, Kiev’s role reinforces the argument that Ukraine is the critical state, insofar as Russia’s own future evolution is concerned...

A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemishphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent … About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources. […] Eurasia is also the location of most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states. After the United States, the next six largest economies and the next six biggest spenders on military weaponry are located in Eurasia. All but one of the world’s overt nuclear powers and all but one of the covert ones are located in Eurasia. The world’s two most populous aspirants to regional hegemony and global influence are Eurasian. All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian.” -The Grand Chessboard

Even now, the United States is steering NATO's drive into Mackinder's Heartland with the addition to its ranks of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia...

'Heartland' strategy in Iraq: Right idea, if done the right way

Posted 6/29/2004 9:00 PM
By William Hamilton

Some critics like to say American foreign policy is discernible only in retrospect. Even so, such opinion could be taken as a left-handed compliment for a nation that has done rather well in defending itself and its allies in the previous century, and now, at the beginning of the 21st century.

Though it might be too early to put a name to the Grand Strategy we are employing with regard to Iraq, just "being there" suggests that our strategy aligns quite nicely with the Heartland Theory put forth in 1904 by Sir Halford John Mackinder, one of the great military strategists of the 20th century.

Here's how the Heartland Theory would apply to Iraq: Get a globe and put your finger on Iraq. Notice how your finger is resting right in the middle, the "heartland," of the Middle East, halfway between Egypt and Pakistan.

In 1904, British geographer Mackinder placed his finger on Eastern Europe and declared that to be the "pivot area" or "heartland" of Europe. He declared: "Who commands Eastern Europe commands the heartland; who rules the heartland commands the world island; and who rules the world-island commands the world." (By world-island, he meant the Euro-Asian-African landmass.)

Did anyone buy the Heartland Theory? Yes. Napoleon understood it even before Mackinder was born. That is why he attacked czarist Russia. Moreover, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and three generations of the world's foremost military strategists embraced it as gospel and acted upon it.

Even now, the United States is steering NATO's drive into Mackinder's Heartland with the addition to its ranks of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia...

Amazon.com: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: Books: Zbigniew Brzezinski

\'Heartland\' strategy in Iraq: Right idea, if done the right way

[Errigal]

Thanks for that post Gladstone.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is just one in a long line of exiled foreigners whom the Americans happily allow to hold key jobs in their foreign policy machine. It is really remarkable how few American-born non-Jews there have been in important positions in the last few years. The Americans have been handing over their foreign policy to foreigners for quite some time now.

Here is a quote from a letter written by an American sent to prosecute war criminals at Nuremberg just after the war:

Consider these Sept. 25, 1945, observations from Tom Dodd, who would emerge as second in command on the American prosecution team:


“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”
Chris Dodd tells me that when he reads this letter, “I first of all cringe a little bit because I wonder what he’s driving at.”


As provocative as the passages may seem, he suggests it’s also important to note that his father specifically said he deplored anti-Semitism and, in fact, had close Jewish friends. So, the senator says, “I tried to understand it in the context, knowing who he was, knowing what he cared about, what his own history was. And there were those, the [Charles] Lindberghs and others, that made the case that…Roosevelt got us into this war because of Jewish issues.”


Today, many Jews fault FDR for not having acted more boldly to save the Jews of Europe.

source

The Americans brought with them a whole shipload of recently exiled German Jews and put them in US Army uniforms to help administer the occupation. The future national security adviser and secretary of state, Henry Kissinger was just one of many.

I have heard that the Germans used to say that the occupying Americans either spoke no German or spoke it far too well.